Pachauri & Lomborg: eco-politics of climate change

re: Pachauri & Lomborg: eco-politics of climate change

Subah — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:11:32 GMT

One very important point that gets ignored is about the distinction between climate change and global warming. Kyoto and likes have failed because of excess attention that politicians and media have given to relatively superficial issue of global warming. Hopefully likes of Mr. Pachauri will understand this distinction and get the attention to where it belongs - climate change. Many observations have already done the background work to identify few of 'brewing' disaters and then agreement on an action plan including funding will be far easier to achieve.

re: Pachauri & Lomborg: eco-politics of climate change

subah — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:59:46 GMT

For short-term, lets hope the geo-engineering folks get some break-through and for the long-term, Moore's law should do the trick.

re: Pachauri & Lomborg: eco-politics of climate change

Seema Singh — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 04:26:35 GMT

Ravi: Thanks, glad to know people are reading. I agree with you but have no clear idea what's the cutoff date. In fact someone (maybe Pachauri or Mario Molia) said that all countries have to bring it down by 80% by 2050. But we all know that kind of cut or any other in near future is not going to stop the change that has already begun, any time soon.

re: Pachauri & Lomborg: eco-politics of climate change

Seema Singh — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 04:23:59 GMT

Marcelo: Good to hear from you. I don't think there's much to write from that panel discussion in Mainau in terms of climate change. Honestly, I was a bit disappointed. Would have loved more fiery exchanges between the panelists. I think Carr could have done more to provoke the speakers :) Though I must say you missed the atmosphere. It was picturesque and inspiring.

re: Pachauri & Lomborg: eco-politics of climate change

Ravi M — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:13:54 GMT

> The developed world never had to pay a price (in terms of emission costs) > for economic development which the developing world is now facing I find myself somewhat conflicted about the whole, "The developed world abused the atmosphere to get where they are now, and ought to do more/compensate the developing world." tack of thought. It would appear that any emissions that the developed world did _before_ it became clear that they could be the cause of catastrophic climate change ought to be discounted, because they didn't know it could cause all this harm. Do you have a sense of when the "cutoff date" is, beyond which excessive emissions are "inexcusable" (as I've defined it!)? I don't know much about the history of anthropogenic climate change research, but if (for example) we take 1990 as the year when the scientific consensus on this emerged, then they're only on the hook for post-1990 emissions. You can't really hold their feet to the fire for pre-1990 activities. Anyway, fascinating, informative and thought-provoking series of posts "from the land of the Nobels" and otherwise, and look forward to more.

re: Pachauri & Lomborg: eco-politics of climate change

Marcelo — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:41:15 GMT

Seema, Yours was so far the only post I've been able to lacte about the talk on Mainau. Do you plan to write more extensively about it? Cheers, Marcelo